E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 7 26. Recommendation (d) stated: Close family members of persons detained should be immediately informed of their relatives’ detention and be given access to them. Measures should be taken to ensure that visitors to police lock-ups, provisional detention facilities and prisons are subjected to security checks that are respectful of their dignity. 27. Recommendation (e) stated: Any person under arrest should be informed of his/her continuing right to consult privately with a lawyer at any time and to receive independent free legal advice where he/she cannot afford a private lawyer. No police officer shall at any time dissuade a person in detention from obtaining legal advice. A statement of detainees’ rights, such as the Law on Penal Execution (LEP), should be readily available at all places of detention for consultation by detained persons and members of the public. 28. Recommendation (f) stated: A separate custody record should be opened for any person under arrest, showing the time and reasons for arrest, the identity of the arresting officers, the time and reasons for any subsequent transfers, in particular to court or a Forensic Medical Institute, and the time a person is released from detention or transferred to a remand detention facility. The record or a copy of the record should accompany a detained person if he or she is transferred to another police station or a provisional detention facility. 29. Recommendation (g) stated: The judicial provisional detention order should never be implemented in a police station. 30. Recommendation (h) stated: No statement or confession made by a person deprived of liberty, other than one made in the presence of a judge or a lawyer, should have probative value in court, except as evidence against those who are accused of having obtained the confession by unlawful means. The Government is invited to give urgent consideration to introducing video and audio taping of proceedings in police interrogation rooms. 31. Recommendation (i) stated: Where allegations of torture or other forms of ill-treatment are raised by a defendant during trial, the burden of proof should shift to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by unlawful means, including torture or similar ill-treatment. 32. Recommendation (j) stated: Complaints of ill-treatment, whether made to the police or other service itself or the internal affairs department of the service (corregedor) or its ombudsman (ouvidor) or a prosecutor, should be expeditiously and diligently investigated. In particular, the outcome should not be dependent only on proof in the individual case; patterns of abuse should be similarly investigated. Unless the allegation is manifestly ill-founded, those involved should be suspended from their duties pending the outcome of the investigation and any subsequent legal or disciplinary proceedings. Where a specific allegation or a pattern of acts of torture or similar ill-treatment is demonstrated, the personnel involved, including those in charge of the institution, should be peremptorily dismissed. This will involve radical purging of some services. A start could be made by purging known torturers from the period of the military Government.